Wayne Gretzky was a great hockey player. His nickname, the Great One, while well earned, does not mean he is deserving of: A) an entire floor of the hockey hall of fame being dedicated just to himB) his #99 jersey to be retired across the league for all teams, even those he didn't play for

Gretzky is the best point collector in NHL history. He was a dynamic offensive player, on the best team in the league, at a time when scoring in the league was at an all time high. He stayed relatively healthy throughout his career, and his playmaking skills did not diminish with age, so he holds all the scoring records, and a bunch of cups with Edmonton. There is no doubt he is AMONG the greatest to ever play the game. But cases could certainly be made for Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Richard being just as good of players, if not better when taking all things into consideration.

sorry to bore you, but I'm not going to say gretzky wasnt good. that would be stupid. i am saying that the worship by the cult of the great one puts him on another plane of existence from every other player cause he collected the most points in the leagues highest scoring era. why can some scrub from the flames wear 66 but nobody can use the all holy 99? Marios ppg are right on pace with gretz.

Yes, Gretz has pretty much every points record. Mario would be very close tho if he had stayed healthy. They both played in the 80s and early 90s, the highest scoring era in league history. But Wayne had a better team for more years, and more importantly did not lose large chunks of his prime career to injuries. If Mario had been able played as many total games as Messier did, he would have eclipsed 3000 points. Gretzky was great, but not locked in as, with no debate, the greatest.

If Gordie Howe was playing in an expansion-filled, diluted era, he would have beat them all. Instead, Gordie had to play against the 5 best goalies in the world every night and going against the 5 best defensive pairings in the world every night and get checked by 5 best left wingers every night...he never got to score 12 goals in a game against the expansion Lightning or Senators...he never got to shoot on Allan Bester or Murray Bannerman (well, maybe him).

There's mild debate, but it's not a very convincing case. Just a lot of ifs. So far, the subject here hasn't been broached.

mikey287 wrote:If Gordie Howe was playing in an expansion-filled, diluted era, he would have beat them all. Instead, Gordie had to play against the 5 best goalies in the world every night and going against the 5 best defensive pairings in the world every night and get checked by 5 best left wingers every night...he never got to score 12 goals in a game against the expansion Lightning or Senators...he never got to shoot on Allan Bester or Murray Bannerman (well, maybe him).

There's mild debate, but it's not a very convincing case. Just a lot of ifs. So far, the subject here hasn't been broached.

I guess... although the European nations weren't tapped at all during his time soooooooo hard to say if the "best" moniker is true. I could be very wrong though just going off logical steps.

mikey287 wrote:If Gordie Howe was playing in an expansion-filled, diluted era, he would have beat them all. Instead, Gordie had to play against the 5 best goalies in the world every night and going against the 5 best defensive pairings in the world every night and get checked by 5 best left wingers every night...he never got to score 12 goals in a game against the expansion Lightning or Senators...he never got to shoot on Allan Bester or Murray Bannerman (well, maybe him).

There's mild debate, but it's not a very convincing case. Just a lot of ifs. So far, the subject here hasn't been broached.

I guess... although the European nations weren't tapped at all during his time soooooooo hard to say if the "best" moniker is true. I could be very wrong though just going off logical steps.

European nations weren't really producing all that great of talent until after the 60's...I recommend a quick bit of research on the most unknown great goaltender Seth Martin and the Trail Smoke Eaters. It might help to gauge the fledgling level of competition in the 1960's international game.

I will give you that the late 70s and early 80s was a different era...which is why you can't really compare Gretzky to modern players, or even the late 80s early 90s. I say who really cares, we are privileged to see players this good play at all, especially here in Pittsburgh.

why do we have to rehash this argument? Can't we be satisfied enough to have witnessed such greatness? Take the black and gold glasses off, and tell me that 99 wasn't the best and I scoff at the argument. Now if you were to throw older names in - Morenz, Malone, Nighbor, etc., at least it would be something to talk about and require thought.

As it were, longevity is not something so easily dismissed. At the top of the game for an extended period of time, are the names that litter the top of the all time scorers. Names that were up there for 20+ years. Was Messier in Gretzy's class? Probably not, but there he is at #2, and no less deserving of consideration of the best of his time.

Pucks_and_Pols wrote:Gretzky had 1.91 points per game. Lemieux had 1.88 on lesser teams while playing through more injuries. How is that case closed?

Points per game is nice and all, but Lemieux couldn't sustain it like Gretzky did. No one is blaming anyone, but one thing happened and the other didn't. No reason to punish Gretzky. In my opinion, Lemieux is 4th in that indisputable tier of greats (99, 4, 9, 66). Not to say Lemieux isn't great, far from it, but Gretzky did it better for 700 more games or thereabouts...

So this points-per-game seems to be the stat of choice. Gretzky's is marginally higher x ~1700 vs. Lemieux's marginally lower x ~1000. All things being equal, neither were winning a Selke any time soon, both dominant playoff players, neither were physical, Gretzky was probably the better leader (largely based off of the 1987 Canada Cup)...the career value can't point any other direction but Gretzky's. It's the easiest comparison to make (99 vs. 66) and it's the easiest win for Gretzky out of the 3 (Orr and Howe being the other two).

Who cares? Anyone that talks in absolutes (Player A is the greatest of all time stuff) is going to be wrong. There is no way to compare players across generations or even in the same generation.

Examples of Lemieux, Gretzky, Howe, and Orr are all completely different players. Lemieux was a rare breed of size, grace, and offensive creativity that probably is unrivaled. Gretzky was a man of speed, talent, and offensive skills that have him head and shoulders above everyone else in terms of offensive production. Howe is a player that played in a generation where talent was not diluted by expansion teams and he was dominant in hockey's golden era. Orr is first and foremost a defenseman. That alone makes him his own conversation. But, his ability to go end to end has left an impact on the NHL with league always looking for the next "prototypical" defenseman that hasn't been seen much since Orr.